Fellers v. United States (No. 02-6320) - Opinion Announcement
: I have the opinion of the Court to announce in No. 02-6320, Fellers against United States which comes to us on certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Two police officers visited the petitioner, a man named John J. Fellers, at his home in Nebraska.
The officers told him that they have come to discuss his involvement in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine that involves several other individual whom they named.
They said that Fellers had been indicted and that they have a warrant for his arrest.
During a brief discussion, Fellers admitted to having used methamphetamine during his association with the named individuals.
The officers transported him to the County jail where they informed him of his rights under the Miranda and Patterson cases.
After he waived those rights, Fellers reiterated his earlier enculpatory statement.
At trial, the District Court suppressed the unwarrant statements that Fellers made at his home but not his jail house statements.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction holding that the jail house statements were admissible under the rule of Oregon against Elstad, a case of ours from about 20 years ago, and that the officers did not violate petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel because they did not interrogate him at his home.
In an opinion authored by Justice O’Connor, we now reverse.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is triggered when judicial proceedings have been initiated against an individual such as an indictment.
We have held that an accused is denied that right when officers deliberately elicit incriminating statements from him in the absence of counsel.
There is no doubt that the officers here did deliberately elicit Fellers’ original incriminating statement when they told him that they had come to discuss his involvement in methamphetamine checking.
The Court of Appeals was therefore wrong in holding that the absence of an interrogation foreclosed Fellers’ Sixth Amendment claim.
Because of that determination, the Court of Appeals did not reach the question whether Fellers’ jail house statement should be suppressed as the fruits of questioning conducted in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
We have had no occasion to decide whether the rationale of Oregon against Elstad applies in that context.
The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to address that issue in the first instance.
The opinion is unanimous.
